Lyons: Law officers' job protections go too far

An image from an Club Ivory security camera video released this month showing the August arrest of Jason B. Dragash in which officer Scott Patrick punched Dragash in the head several times. Sarasota Police kept secret the existence of a second video showing the incident according to court records.

Published: Monday, October 22, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.

Last Modified: Monday, October 22, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.

There are times when a police agency needs to know if a law enforcement officer did something illegal, improper or flat out abusive.

One valuable tool for internal affairs investigators to get started at finding out what happened would be the power to question the suspected officer. Common sense, right?

But the strange fact is that this isn't allowed. Not in Florida, anyway. Hard to believe?

To protect officers from the possibility of unfair “third-degree questioning” at the hands of hostile superiors, Florida has what is called the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.

Ironic name, I think. The idea of the original Bill of Rights, the one that is part of the United States Constitution, is that we are all equals under the law. But officers have lobbied for and won additional rights that protect their jobs from their own administrators and colleagues.

There are needed and reasonable protections in there. After all, there have been cases of good cops being targeted with unfair discipline or firing by not-so-good administrators. But some rules created to prevent unjust firings and the like seem way too extreme.

For instance, a law officer under internal investigation must be told all the names of any complainants before being asked any questions. Those people must all be questioned first, along with all witnesses, including any fellow cops. And the suspected officer gets to see all their statements and any and all evidence before he or she is questioned.

What's with that?

I can't even imagine telling my boss I won't answer questions until all that has been done.

Of course, it greatly helps any accused officer who wants to fashion a lie that is hard to disprove. So, if our aim is to help cops get away with lying, that provision of their Bill of Rights is just the ticket.

I just learned of another bad feature of that document: It may scare cops into being secretive about evidence of possible police wrongdoing.

You may know the case that brought this to mind. During a recent court battle to get the city to release a night club security camera video that shows a Sarasota Police officer repeatedly punching a man during an arrest, no one told the judge — or even the city's own attorney — that police have a second video of the incident.

The reason given later: Those who knew feared that the mention of that video, even to a judge, would be a crime.

Huh? Really?

To those who think keeping evidence of possible police wrongdoing a secret is more like a crime, that claim seemed incredible. It sounds like a made-up dodge more than an actual fear. But maybe not. The police Bill of Rights rules cover a lot of ground.

One section says any participant in an internal investigation “who willfully discloses any information obtained pursuant to the agency's investigation” commits a first-degree misdemeanor.

I don't really believe revealing the existence of a security camera video showing what happened — especially to a judge or to the city's own attorney — would qualify as criminally disclosing information. But given the wording of that statute, who knows?

As City Commissioner Shannon Snyder — a former cop — says, the police officers' Bill of Rights is a good thing that may have gone too far. It needs tweaking, he said, if only because “it's sort of written vaguely.”

By the way, it is reasonable and proper that the punching officer's actions during that arrest are under investigation, and people certainly deserve to know that. But guess what? The rules say no one involved in the investigation can tell you that he is being investigated.

The idea of that rule is that cops may be falsely accused, you see. So, to be fair to them, everything should be kept under wraps until the investigation is complete. And that could take six months.

Meanwhile, if the same police officer arrests you on a split-second whim with slim evidence of any crime, knowing almost for certain that prosecutors will drop the charge, no secrecy is contemplated or even allowed.

You get taken to jail and strip searched and your horrible mug shot is publicly posted along with the accusation the officer made.

How fair is that?

Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.

<p>There are times when a police agency needs to know if a law enforcement officer did something illegal, improper or flat out abusive.</p><p>One valuable tool for internal affairs investigators to get started at finding out what happened would be the power to question the suspected officer. Common sense, right?</p><p>But the strange fact is that this isn't allowed. Not in Florida, anyway. Hard to believe?</p><p>To protect officers from the possibility of unfair “third-degree questioning” at the hands of hostile superiors, Florida has what is called the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.</p><p>Ironic name, I think. The idea of the original Bill of Rights, the one that is part of the United States Constitution, is that we are all equals under the law. But officers have lobbied for and won additional rights that protect their jobs from their own administrators and colleagues.</p><p>There are needed and reasonable protections in there. After all, there have been cases of good cops being targeted with unfair discipline or firing by not-so-good administrators. But some rules created to prevent unjust firings and the like seem way too extreme.</p><p>For instance, a law officer under internal investigation must be told all the names of any complainants before being asked any questions. Those people must all be questioned first, along with all witnesses, including any fellow cops. And the suspected officer gets to see all their statements and any and all evidence before he or she is questioned.</p><p>What's with that?</p><p>I can't even imagine telling my boss I won't answer questions until all that has been done.</p><p>Of course, it greatly helps any accused officer who wants to fashion a lie that is hard to disprove. So, if our aim is to help cops get away with lying, that provision of their Bill of Rights is just the ticket.</p><p>I just learned of another bad feature of that document: It may scare cops into being secretive about evidence of possible police wrongdoing.</p><p>You may know the case that brought this to mind. During a recent court battle to get the city to release a night club security camera video that shows a Sarasota Police officer repeatedly punching a man during an arrest, no one told the judge — or even the city's own attorney — that police have a second video of the incident.</p><p>The reason given later: Those who knew feared that the mention of that video, even to a judge, would be a crime.</p><p>Huh? Really?</p><p>To those who think keeping evidence of possible police wrongdoing a secret is more like a crime, that claim seemed incredible. It sounds like a made-up dodge more than an actual fear. But maybe not. The police Bill of Rights rules cover a lot of ground. </p><p>One section says any participant in an internal investigation “who willfully discloses any information obtained pursuant to the agency's investigation” commits a first-degree misdemeanor.</p><p>I don't really believe revealing the existence of a security camera video showing what happened — especially to a judge or to the city's own attorney — would qualify as criminally disclosing information. But given the wording of that statute, who knows?</p><p>As City Commissioner Shannon Snyder — a former cop — says, the police officers' Bill of Rights is a good thing that may have gone too far. It needs tweaking, he said, if only because “it's sort of written vaguely.”</p><p>By the way, it is reasonable and proper that the punching officer's actions during that arrest are under investigation, and people certainly deserve to know that. But guess what? The rules say no one involved in the investigation can tell you that he is being investigated.</p><p>The idea of that rule is that cops may be falsely accused, you see. So, to be fair to them, everything should be kept under wraps until the investigation is complete. And that could take six months.</p><p>Meanwhile, if the same police officer arrests you on a split-second whim with slim evidence of any crime, knowing almost for certain that prosecutors will drop the charge, no secrecy is contemplated or even allowed.</p><p>You get taken to jail and strip searched and your horrible mug shot is publicly posted along with the accusation the officer made.</p><p>How fair is that?</p><p><i>Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.</i></p>